Socialism in America

...

Socialism in America is alive, well, and growing. Aided by such influential Congressmen as John Conyers, Ranking Member of the House Judicial Committee, David Bonior, the pit-bull-dog who successfully whipped Newt, Maxine Waters, the President's outspoken defender in the impeachment debates, and nearly 60 other Representatives, socialism is advancing in America behind the "Progressive" label.

"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. DSA's members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.

"At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. We are activists committed not only to extending political democracy but to demanding democratic empowerment in the economy, in gender relations, and in culture. Democracy is not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society. Our vision is of a society in which people have a real voice in the choices and relationships that affect the entirety of our lives. We call this vision democratic socialism - a vision of a more free, democratic and humane society.

We are socialists because we reject an international economic ordersustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination,environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the statusquo.

We are socialists because we share a vision of a humaneinternational social order based both on democratic planning and marketmechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, ahealthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, andnon-oppressive relationships."

Why have a firewall installed?

Well there are authorities doing nothing except scanning the Internet for pornography, especially child pornography. So, you don’t them planting their crap on YOUR hard drive.

Planting ‘evidence’ or having images from a spammer or other undesirable sources that have attacked your computer can lead you directly to jail, do not pass GO.

Planting drugs on suspects or a ‘throw away’ gun on a citizen just shot for the ‘fun of it’ is more common than the average citizen can possibly imagine.

Professionalism and dedication is rare in the real world of law enforcement and the courts. It’s about revenue collection, not about criminal correction.

That’s why I’m against any library of DNA for citizens not convicted of any crimes. They can go to their DNA library and plant evidence for open and shut cases. Too many ‘Crime Labs’ have already been exposed for ‘manufacturing evidence.’A great deal or very high percentage of people arrested and convicted, did do the crime. But, there still is a percentage that are wrongly arrested and ground through the system and abused further for protesting their injustice.

* * * *

Mitsubishi abandons employee

Jack’s story one year onOver a year has passed since Jack’s ordeal below began.

What have we learned? Confirmed by other stories on this web site, once convicted it is most difficult to obtain a reversal of the conviction and justice. In addition, if you are forced to plea bargain, especially in the US where it is used as a form of severe coercion, it is virtually impossible subsequently to argue innocence.

Because he was rendered penniless, Jack was not able to launch a counter attack on Mitsubushi who fired him and reported him to the police.

So very little on a personal level for Jack who was imprisoned, paroled, placed on a sex offender’s course, made unemployable – in short his life ruined. But perhaps if he can hold out, something may come out of it for him. More

A Minor Setback for Big Brother?

Police said it was an important tool to thwart terrorism.But just a few years after the Matrix system was introduced, the multistate database loaded with criminal and government records has fallen apart, leaving only three participating states.

Connecticut abandoned the system last month because its federal funding expired, and police say it could be years before a similar system becomes available. Nationwide, Matrix was supported with $12 million in federal grants.

Matrix, which stands for Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, combined criminal, motor vehicle and other government records from participating states with billions of commercial files held by a private Florida company, Seisint Inc. The system could produce dossiers on individuals, including property and business records, within minutes.

Connecticut's withdrawal from Matrix was applauded by the American Civil Liberties Union, which said it would resist efforts to establish similar databases.

"I'm glad to see Connecticut has withdrawn," said Barry Steinhardt, director of ACLU's technology and liberty program, "but it doesn't mean the concern is dead."

Police, however, say the loss of Matrix eliminates a useful investigative tool.

"Information is our lifeblood," said West Hartford Police Chief James Strillacci, president of the Connecticut Chiefs of Police Association.

"Having more information available and having it distilled would make our jobs easier."

Connecticut's public safety commissioner, Leonard C. Boyle, said the federal government is working on a system that could be a substitute for Matrix.

"I think a system that allows an investigator to use a single database and acquire public information from other entities is a valuable tool," Boyle said. Boyle said state police are considering sharing a database with Pennsylvania, but he said any replacement is at least a year away.

Besides being expensive, Matrix was criticized by civil libertarians who maintained that it was unreliable and contained too much sensitive information about law-abiding people.

State police said there were no violations of privacy or civil rights laws during the Matrix pilot program in Connecticut. Sgt. J. Paul Vance, a state police spokesman, said Matrix helped identify suspects and find missing people and property.

"The Department of Justice is trying to work with state legislatures and government to come forward with a plan on a national level where we could share information with the understanding of the concerns about Big Brother," Dargan said.

"They are trying to work on that, but it's still a few years away."

James Thomas, commissioner of the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, said state troopers assigned to his agency had been using Matrix.

"Without it, it is just going to take good old-fashioned police work," he said.

"We'll look at any alternatives that come up, but no matter what, you still need to do the work."

Date Rape

...

I talked with two women in their late 20’s yesterday about date rape and the ‘adventure’ they had the night before. Date rape is probably more prevalent and uninvestigated than one might think. You should take precautions and protect yourself as your life could hang in the balance.

The pair of women had been partying with friends over the holiday weekend.

One had ‘lost time’ and claimed to have been brought home by the police. She thinks a date rape drug had been used on her.

The woman had hand prints on her arms and felt that she had been involved in a violent struggle but didn’t feel that she had been sexually assaulted.

The pair found a ski mask and rubber gloves near the scene where one of the pair felt she was last, retracing her steps trying to remember the previous night’s events.

The girls had little faith that Connecticut area police would do little other than to ‘pretend’ to care and actually do an investigation.

Memorial Day weekend is a big revenue generator for cops. If the police spent 1% of the time on criminal correction and 99% of the time on revenue collection, instead of almost 100% of their efforts in collecting undeclared taxes and going after assets and property to confiscate, there would be a lot less crime.

It would also mean less job security for them as the problem of crime would start to be solved …

Attn:Dear,In brief introduction , I am Mohamed Abui and my yonger sister SaleemAbui we are the children of late Alhaji Ibrahim Abui , the formerMinister of Finance in the Republic of Guinea Bissau.

After going through your profile when we was searching for a reliable andtrustworthy person who can assist us to transfer the sum of 28.7 Million US Dollarsabroad for investment, we became interested in disclosing every thing aboutourselfs to you, we are interested in a long term business relationship with you.

In the year 1998 during our father's tenure in office ,he diverted somefund meant for estate complex Development Project (700Housing Umt).The project awarded to read US$64.7Million dollars , on execution ofthe contract it reads US$36.0 Million dollars while 28.7 Million dollarswas diverted by our late father after the completion.

All the depository documents are with us.

This event dated 13th November 1999, during political crisis in my country Guinea Bissau.My father later died in the heat of the crisis in the year 2000.

The fund being deposited in the Bank in Abidjan Cote d'Ivoire due tosecurity reason. we source to contact you to assist us in transferringthe above fund into your account as the beneficiary in your country foronward investment in your country.

In transferring this money, the bank requires the following from you:(1) Your full address, your private telephone and fax numbers for easycommunications (2) Your Bank details , the telephone and fax numbers ofyour bank and the address of the bank.

After the conclusion of this transaction we will offeryou 15% of the total sum for your assistance.

Please feel free to contact us as soon as possible, by email above is(ok) so that we can discuss modalities concerning the transaction.Hoping to hear from you with anticipation.

Best regards.

Mohamed and Saleem

* * * *

This is an open out and out scam. If the American government and authorities in the world cared, this would not go on day after day, after day.

Violating Civil Rights OR child molestation?

A federal judge on Friday fined a former West Hartford insurance executive $5,000 for helping his former company make illegal contributions to the unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of former Waterbury Mayor Philip A. Giordano, now a federal inmate.

Two months ago, Watts admitted in court that he and three other Watson employees, with their spouses, each made $1,000 contributions to Giordano's 2000 campaign. The company reimbursed its employees the total amount of the contributions, disguising the reimbursements as commissions or salaries, federal prosecutors said.

Federal law prohibits a corporation from contributing to federal campaigns and from reimbursing others for making contributions on its behalf.

Arthur A. Watson & Co. also pleaded guilty and was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions. The company was fined $8,000 this month.

Federal authorities were investigating municipal corruption in Waterbury in 2001 when they overheard Giordano making plans to have sex with two pre-teen girls. They broke off the corruption probe and arrested Giordano, who later was sentenced to 37 years in prison for violating the girls' civil rights.

The corruption investigation resumed after Giordano's imprisonment and is continuing.

Free Speech On The Street

NEW HAVEN -- A street preacher who likes to share his Christian beliefs outside nightclubs and bars - places that promote activities contrary to the tenets of his faith - is suing city police for trying to shut down his one-man ministry.

Jesse Morrell, 20, says he should be allowed to sing hymns, read and quote the Bible and preach and pray on the sidewalks outside of The Playwright Irish Pub and Alchemy Club and Lounge without fear of arrest.

"The Bible is the true map to heaven and I want people to know that simple truth," he says.

Morrell claims the police threatened to arrest him as he tried to preach outside four city nightclubs and bars last year. His lawsuit, filed in federal court here, alleges that his constitutional rights to free speech and due process were violated. He is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian public interest law firm based in Arizona that has fought successfully to invalidate gay marriage licenses in Oregon and allow abortion foes in Louisiana to post signs of aborted fetuses.

Morrell grew up in suburban Cheshire. He got serious about the Lord, he says, during his stay at a drug rehabilitation center in Hamden. Before that, he was in and out of the juvenile hall in New Haven for petty crimes.

"Born again" at 15, he has spent the past few years preaching to people wherever they congregate - bus stops, public parks and bars.

On May 16, 2004, Morrell started reading his Bible outside a Temple Street establishment identified as "The Irish Pub" in his lawsuit. After a police officer threatened to arrest him, he packed up his stool and left, he says. He then walked to his car, grabbed his tape recorder and set down his stool a few doors away, at Neat Lounge. A second police officer, David Coppola, approached and "in a very aggressive manner" forced Morrell to stop preaching, the lawsuit says. Morrell tried to record their conversation, but the officer ripped the wire out of his recorder, he says, then chucked Morrell's stool into a nearby trash can.

Undeterred, Morrell retrieved his soapbox and moved on to Alchemy Club and Cafe, then The Back Room at Bottega, but again the police chased him away, he claims. Morrell says his curbside ministry has also encountered problems in Hartford and Waterbury.

New Haven Police Department spokeswoman Bonnie Winchester declined to comment on Morrell's claims, adding that it is department policy not to discuss pending litigation.

At the moment, Morrell is studying at Teen Mania Ministries, a Christian youth organization in Tyler, Texas, with his mother's blessing. The founder and president of the organization, Ron Luce, is a member of the White House Advisory Commission on Drug-Free Communities - an appointee of President Bush. Morrell says police in Texas have harassed him and even thrown him into jail for his public preaching. Morrell also shares his beliefs via a website,

"www.newenglandoutreach.com," and is looking for someone to publish his new book, "Cleansing the Temple."

In August, he'll start work at another evangelical boot camp in Texas, the Great News Network.

Eventually, he says, he intends to return to Connecticut and continue his preaching here.

"There's no doubt if everyone agreed with what he had to say, no one would have bothered him," said Nate Ketchum, a staff lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund.

"If everyone agreed with the speech, there'd be no need for the First Amendment."

Monday, May 30, 2005

The Nation's Dumbest Drivers Live Here

The nation's dumbest drivers live there if the GMAC Insurance National Driver's Test is right.

The startling results: Nearly 20 million Americans--that would be one in 10 drivers--would fail their state driver's test if they had to take it today.

In addition to surveying them about their general driving habits, GMAC gave its 20-question test to more than 5,000 licensed drivers between the ages of 16 and 65. Those who live in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states did the worst with 20 percent failing the test. And of these states, Rhode Island scored the lowest with an average test score of 77 percent, just barely above a failing grade of 70 percent. On the other hand, the most knowledgeable drivers live in Oregon with an average score of 89 percent, followed by Washington, Iowa, Idaho, and Wyoming.

And that's not even the scariest part of the survey. The results also suggest that many Americans find standard driving practices troublesome, including merging, failure to yield when making left turns, and road-sign interpretation. In addition, many may not take such important topics as drinking and driving seriously enough. Twenty-nine percent of drivers (57 million) who drink admitted they would knowingly drive while over the legal limit "if they felt okay."

General driving safety knowledge: Where Americans are most lacking is...

--Drivers 18 to 24 years old are most likely to fail a written driving test (78 percent passing rate); drivers 50 to 64 years are most likely to pass (85 percent passing rate).

--Drivers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are the least knowledgeable; one in five were unable to pass the written drivers test.--Drivers in the Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes are the most knowledgeable with a failure rate of just 1 to 3 percent.

--At least one out of five drivers do not know that a pedestrian has the right of way at a marked or unmarked crosswalk. This is of special concern considering that drivers in urban areas are among the least knowledgeable in the nation.

Keep reading...if you dare:

--One out of three drivers claim to speed up to make a yellow light even when pedestrians are in the crosswalk.

--One out of four drivers would roll through a stop sign rather than come to a complete stop.--Drivers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are the most likely to speed.

Capitol Hill Corruption: Operation Tennessee Waltz

Agents also arrested former Memphis senator Roscoe Dixon, who now works for the Shelby County mayor’s office; Barry Myers, from Memphis; and Charles Love, from Chattanooga.

The arrests were made based on indictments by a federal grand jury in Memphis.

According to the indictments, the suspects were accused of violating the Hobbs Act, which is a type of extortion, and of taking bribes to use their offices to help a company do business in Tennessee.

According to the FBI, the lawmakers accepted bribes from a fictitious undercover electronics company to sponsor legislation that would have helped the company make money.

The legislators sponsored or supported house bill 37 (bill 97 in the senate), which would have allowed the fake company to purchase surplus computer equipment from the state. Newton withdrew the bill on Wednesday because something didn't seem right about it.

The undercover company was called E-Cycle Management, Inc., which was in the business of “obtaining and disposing of outdated electronic equipment” and sending it out of the U.S. for salvage, according to the indictments.

Ford was accused of accepting $55,000; Crutchfield was accused of taking $12,000; Bowers was accused of taking $11,500; Newton was accused of accepting $4,500; and Dixon was accused of taking $9,500.

Ford was also accused of threatening or intimidating a witness in connection with the investigation.

Those indicted could face up to 20 years in prision and a $250,000 fine for the extortion charge alone.

According to the Associated Press, Love is a lobbyist who said last week that he lobbied legislators on behalf E-Cycle Management even though records show he was not registered to work for that firm.

The investigation, dubbed Tennessee Waltz, took two years, FBI officials said. The investigation was conducted by the Memphis and Knoxville FBI offices. Nashville and Chattanooga agents were also involved.

Saturday, May 28, 2005

Busted!

Oliver Stone

Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone has been arrested for drink driving and possession of drugs.Police said the 58-year-old film-maker was arrested on Friday night at a police checkpoint on Sunset Boulevard, in Beverly Hills, California.

Sergeant John Edmundson said drugs were found during a search of Mr Stone's Mercedes but did not specify what kind of drugs they were.

Mr Stone was released on $15,000 (£8,200) bail on Saturday morning.

The checkpoint was set up as part of a state-wide crackdown on drink driving during the Memorial Day weekend.

Follow up to story on two teens facing prison for building a snow fort on school grounds

...

TWO STUDENTS FINED FOR TRESPASSING -- Framingham High School seniors Jenna Schroeder and Jason Osorio, both 18, have each received a fine of $100 plus a $25 surcharge for trespassing on school grounds, according to Osorio.

The two were found guilty this month of trespassing in January, when they built a giant snow cave next to their school on a day when classes were canceled.

''I hate to throw out that kind of money for no reason," said Osorio, who maintained his innocence after the sentencing.

''I'm glad it's over because my life can go on."

Police have said the students were given a chance to leave but were placed under arrest because the large cave was seen as a possible danger to the pair or to younger children if it collapsed.-- Lisa Kocian

Troubled families with at-risk young children could get help from special regional probate courts under a bill approved Friday by the state House of Representatives.

The bill, approved 124-19, would create six regional childrens' probate courts that would work to help youngsters just beginning to have serious problems.

The bill must be approved by the state Senate and signed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell to become law.

The courts would mirror an experimental court now operating in New Haven.Supporters said these courts would provide early legal intervention intended not to break families apart, but to give them the help they need to stay together and tackle problems that could be causing a child's poor behavior.

Truancy and other troubles at school are indicators in young children that something is going badly in their lives, supporters said.

"This should have been done long ago," said Rep. Kostantinos Diamantis, D-Bristol.

These courts will give struggling families a place to seek help that is less adversarial than criminal court or the state's child welfare system, he said.

James Lawlor, state probate court administrator, attended the meeting to watch. At earlier public hearings on the bill, Lawlor said early intervention by probate courts could nudge a child back on track and determine whether the parents were struggling, overwhelmed, addicted or derelict and in need of help.

In other business, the House approved Rell's choice of former six-term representative Frank P. Prelli of Winsted to be the state agriculture commissioner.

He will replace Bruce Gresczyk, who resigned in March amidst growing criticism from lawmakers and an investigation into two whistleblower complaints filed against him.

Friday, May 27, 2005

Fluff from MSN:

(Disclaimer: Just because I post something doesn't mean I agree or disagree, just that I found it interesting)

Picture from MSN

Men reveal: 'Why I date younger women'By Tobey Grumet

Ever feel like all the men your age are dating women half your age?

OK.

Maybe not half your age. But you get the idea. What makes men drawn to younger women?

Is it just about looks and our youth-centric culture?

Well, that’s part of it. But you might be surprised that the real reasons go way beyond the physical.

Men, it turns out, are a bit more complicated than that!

It’s about math…

“When you reach your late 30s, it's not so much that dating a younger woman becomes more attractive, it's just harder not to.

The law of averages means that proportionately fewer women your age are single. But dating a woman in her 20s when you’re approaching 40 is also less demanding; you’re not faced with the same requirements to make a decision about your future.

When your new girlfriend is 36, she expects you’re thinking about the next few years, not just the next few dates.”—Colin, 38, Chicago, IL

Have it my way

"I'd say the allure is that younger women are less judgmental and less set in their ways. They don't (yet) have a laundry list of what they want in a partner, in a career, in a life. Younger women are more user-friendly, I suppose. I think that kind of attitude appeals to thirtysomething guys who want a relationship to really be on our terms."—Larry, 35, Edison, NJ

The fun patrol“Honestly, younger women are sometimes more open to goofy good times than a women who has a few years on her. You can invite them to Kung Fu Hustle without getting a skeptical look.”—Mitchell, 39, Baltimore, MD

Check all baggage, please

“The appealing thing about younger women is their outlook on life. They tend to be untainted by experiences that have hardened older women. Like when a woman’s been lied to a lot after years of dating, she always thinks you’re lying to her. And that’s a turnoff. Younger women are less cynical and that’s a big draw.”—Alan*, 46 New York

Marriage-minded…not!

“What makes a younger woman a good catch? She's not itching to have a ring on her finger. She's interested in the here and now, in going out, in having fun. It may sound like a cliché, but it’s reality. I'm not anti-marriage, I'm just anti-agenda. A younger woman seems more willing to let things take their natural course.”—Roger, 35, New York, NY

The age-defying principle

"When a guy reaches a certain age, he worries he sees his youth and vitality wane. A younger woman reaffirms for me that I’ve still got it going on."—Mike, 40, Orlando, FL

Let me lead…

“One advantage of dating a younger woman is that you can play ‘cruise director’—show her all your secret favorite places that she probably hasn’t experienced yet. They’re easier to impress and very willing to be escorted around. Women like it when you have a plan and it’s well-executed.”—Bill, 33, New York, NY

Police not acting on tips is nothing new

Andre Barker walked into Middletown police headquarters one night to report a murder. But the desk officer didn't believe the homeless man's story - he said he had been asked to cut up a body - and turned him away.

Now, police supervisors are trying to identify the officer who failed to act on Barker's tip - information that could have put the man accused of the crime in police custody sooner and prevented him from fleeing the state.

So far, no officer has admitted talking to Barker the night of April 11. A supervisor, Sgt. Heather Desmond, has recalled hearing part of the conversation between Barker and the officer but says she can't remember whom Barker talked to.

Though New Hampshire police were able to catch up this week with the suspect in the slaying of Bill Farrell, Barker's claim that he was ignored is raising questions about how city police are trained to deal with the public.

Police Chief J. Edward Brymer did not return a call seeking comment Thursday. Deputy Police Chief Philip Pessina confirmed police are "looking into" Barker's claims but said there is no internal affairs investigation because the officer has not been identified. Pessina said Desmond confirmed that the conversation took place between Barker and the officer.

"I'm not going to prejudge the officer or Mr. Barker at this point," Pessina said.

"But I can tell you I will not tolerate unprofessional behavior at the front desk or anywhere in the department. If that's what really occurred here, then we need to look into it and make sure it doesn't happen again."

Barker said he wasted little time telling police about a disturbing conversation he had with a man he knew as Stony VanDamme.

It was about 10 p.m. on April 11 after Barker met up with "Stony" at a local homeless shelter. In between drinks of vodka and juice, Stony told his story. The more Stony drank, the more he talked. Then, there was a confession.

"He told me he killed somebody," Barker, 21, said during a recent telephone interview from his mother's Rocky Hill home.

"And he wanted me to help cut up the body. At first, I didn't believe it. Then, I just got out of there and went to police."

Barker said he did not drink alcohol that night and was sober when he went to police headquarters at about 10:15 p.m.

Barker said he was in the lobby of police headquarters telling a dark-haired male police officer what Stony told him. He also recalled seeing a female officer with a ponytail behind the front window.

The male officer laughed when he heard the name Stony VanDamme and asked Barker if that was a real name. Barker said he explained that Stony said he killed someone and that he wanted help getting rid of the body. Barker said although he didn't know where the body was, he knew where Stony was so police could talk to him.

"I told him he was hiding at the picnic tables at Metro Square near Subway," Barker said.

"I thought he probably would have cracked and told them if they went there. [Stony] thought I left to go to sleep. He didn't know I went to police." But the officer wasn't buying his story.

Barker said the male officer told him a lot of people come off the street with similar tales.

The officer did not write a report about what Barker told him. The officer, instead, urged Barker to go find the body and report back to police when he did, Barker said.Barker said he tried a second time to tell his story about Stony, the man who, like him, was often unemployed and homeless, a man he would work odd jobs with at the temporary employment agency Labor Ready - a man he never thought could commit such an unspeakable act. But still no one would listen.

"I told him two times that night and then I left," Barker said.

"I just walked out. He acted like he didn't want to help. Maybe it was because I was homeless."

Barker had been arrested in the past on charges of larceny and reckless driving.

A few days later, Barker said, he read a newspaper story about the murder of Middlesex Hospital custodian Bill Farrell. Farrell, 51, was found dead April 14 inside a downtown rooming house where he lived.

The news article prompted Barker to go to police headquarters again with his story about Stony.

"I went to see them again. This time they listened to me," Barker said.

By then, detectives, with the help of Farrell's wide circle of friends in the area, had already zeroed-in on Philip Richardson, 49, a former boyfriend and roommate of Farrell's who also sang karaoke with him at local bars and restaurants.

Richardson performed under the stage name of Stony VanDamme, police said.

The couple had an on-again, off-again relationship that ended shortly before Farrell's death. A December 2004 police report shows the couple was arrested on breach of peace charges after fighting with each other at a local bar. Police questioned Richardson after the slaying but he denied any involvement.Initially, police did not call Farrell's death a homicide. His body had decomposed substantially, making it difficult to determine the cause of death. Though the autopsy was inconclusive, detectives proceeded as if it were a homicide.

Tests show Farrell died of "asphyxia in the setting of blunt force trauma" and his death was later ruled a homicide. After a five-week investigation, police had a warrant for Richardson's arrest, but by then, he had fled Middletown. Early Tuesday, authorities found Richardson hiding in an apartment in Manchester, N.H. Richardson is fighting extradition to Connecticut and is due in New Hampshire district court June 23.

Barker said detectives were angered by the way he was treated. He has looked at a photo lineup of officers but has not seen the officer. They want him to look at more pictures of officers and supervisors.

Pessina said Barker's information "really engineered the investigation" and he discounted the idea that Barker's homelessness may have lessened his credibility with the front desk officer.

"We're very sensitive to the needs of all people, whether they're homeless, whoever they are, and we make sure people are treated with the due respect they deserve," Pessina said.

"I want the citizens, residents of the city, anyone, to feel comfortable coming to us."

Policing experts say that although phony complaints are not uncommon, there are tests that officers can use to determine if something is worth pursuing.

Thomas C. Frazier, executive director of the Association of Major City Police Chiefs, said in this instance, the seriousness of the alleged crime and the timeliness of the reporting should have prompted the officer to act immediately.

"I can't imagine not checking that. It was a serious crime - the most serious of crimes - and the conversation had just occurred. And the man knew where the suspect was. You have to make sure you lock things down until you can confirm or deny the commission of a crime."

Sgt. J. Paul Vance, state police spokesman, said although written reports are not done on all complaints, a report of a possible murder would be something troopers would probe further.

"You'd be amazed at some of the things people come in and tell us," Vance said.

From Patterico's Pontification blog:

This is an outrage:A man who was falsely imprisoned after being shot and framed by corrupt Rampart gang officers nearly a decade ago was awarded $6.5 million in damages Wednesday by a jury that found his county public defender was negligent for failing to uncover the police misconduct.Here’s why it’s an outrage:

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Should State Courts face certification inorder to decide Death Penalty Cases?

The federal judge who threatened the law license of serial killer Michael Ross' attorney filed a court document in Ross' case before the state Supreme Court in 1992 while still practicing as a lawyer.

Chief U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny's conduct in the recent Ross proceedings is the subject of complaints filed by state prosecutors and state Republican legislative leaders. His newly discovered involvement in the Ross case 13 years ago raises the question of whether it was a conflict of interest for him to preside over several federal appeals this year that attempted to halt Ross' execution.

One state legislator Wednesday called Chatigny's involvement in the recent Ross proceedings "a clear ethical violation" in light of his earlier role.

Chatigny's Jan. 28 teleconference with various lawyers, including Ross' attorney, T.R. Paulding, so unnerved Paulding that he postponed the execution just hours before Ross was to die.

Chatigny, through his law clerk, Peter Gwynne, declined to comment Wednesday.

House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford, said that Chatigny's 1992 court documents would definitely be added to the complaint that he and other Republican leaders filed with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.

"I find it outrageous that a judge would participate in a case as an impartial judge when he participated in a portion of that same case as a litigant," Ward said.

"It seems to me a clear ethical violation for a judge not to disclose his prior involvement in a case."

"I can understand a lawyer not remembering details of a case he was involved in 10 or 12 years ago," said Ward, who has been a lawyer for 26 years.

"But there aren't many Michael Ross cases. His name is on the petition to the state Supreme Court. ... He clearly had an agenda in this case."

In 1992, Chatigny, then a partner in the Hartford-based law firm of Chatigny and Cowdery, filed a three-page application with the state Supreme Court on behalf of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. The association sought permission to file a friend of the court brief in the Ross appeal. The letter stated that the association "is gravely concerned about the trial court's rulings on significant evidentiary issues in this case," which, the letter noted, was the first capital case before the court for review in recent history. The application to file a brief was granted, but there is no record of such a brief ever having been filed. The court's order granting the application specifically states that the lawyers' association would not be permitted to participate in oral arguments before the court.

The only signature on the application for permission to intervene is Chatigny's.The application takes no position on the death penalty itself, focusing mainly on evidence that was barred by the trial court in 1987. The state Supreme Court ultimately vacated Ross' death sentences and ordered a new penalty-phase hearing. Ross was again sentenced to death in 2000, and he was put to death by lethal injection May 13, becoming the first convict executed in New England in 45 years.

Ross was originally scheduled to be executed Jan. 26 - a date that was postponed several times due to a flurry of federal appeals. On Jan. 28 at 10 p.m., the U.S. Supreme Court removed the last of the legal barriers to the execution scheduled to commence four hours later, at 2:01 a.m. Jan. 29.

But Chatigny on the afternoon of Jan. 28 held a telephone conference call with lawyers involved in one of the Ross appeals. It ostensibly was to deal with a letter from an inmate claiming that Ross had been brainwashed, but rapidly evolved into a diatribe against Paulding by Chatigny.

During the call, Chatigny told Paulding that Paulding was "way out on a limb" and told him, "We're not in this profession to help people get killed." Chatigny warned Paulding, "You better be prepared to deal with me" if anything the inmate said proved true.

In a telephone conference two days earlier in a related appeal, Assistant Attorney General Terrence M. O'Neill questioned Chatigny's objectivity.O'Neill asked Chatigny point-blank, "Does your honor hold any personally held beliefs or has your honor written in any other cases that we just haven't been able to find yet that would cause us to question your partiality with respect to the implementation or execution of a death sentence?"

Chatigny replied that he told federal lawmakers during his confirmation hearing "that I have no moral beliefs or other types of beliefs that would stand in the way of implementing a death penalty in the circumstances where the law called for it to be done."

15 Years in Prison for falling behind on Child Support

...

individual and official capacities, Respondents.

05-C-148-C.

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

May 4, 2005

ORDER

BARBARA CRABB, Chief Judge, District

This is a proposed civil action for monetary relief broughtunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . At the time he filed his complaint,petitioner Robert Roth was confined at the Dodge CorrectionalInstitution in Waupun, Wisconsin. By letter dated April 18, 2005,petitioner informed the court that he has been transferred to theWaupun Correctional Institution in Waupun, Wisconsin. Petitionerasks for leave to proceed under the in forma pauperisstatute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . From the financial affidavit he hasgiven the court, I conclude that petitioner is unable to prepaythe full fees and costs of starting this lawsuit. Petitioner haspaid the initial partial payment required under § 1915(b)(1).Along with his complaint,Page 2he has filed a motion for appointment of counsel.

In addressing any pro se litigant's complaint, the court mustread the allegations of the complaint generously. See Hainesv. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 , 521 (1972). However, if the litigant isa prisoner, the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act requires thecourt to deny leave to proceed if the prisoner has had three ormore lawsuits or appeals dismissed for lack of legal merit(except under specific circumstances that do not exist here), orif the prisoner's complaint is legally frivolous, malicious,fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or asksfor money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued formoney damages. This court will not dismiss petitioner's case onits own motion for lack of administrative exhaustion, but ifrespondents believe that petitioner has not exhausted theremedies available to him as required by § 1997e(a), they mayallege his lack of exhaustion as an affirmative defense and argueit on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6).Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 1999); see alsoPerez v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532 (7th Cir.1999).

In his complaint, petitioner alleges the following facts.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

A. Parties

Petitioner Robert Roth is currently serving a fifteen-yearprison sentence at thePage 3Waupun Correctional Institution. At all relevant times,respondent Eric Lundell was employed as a circuit court judge andrespondent Howard Cameron was a lawyer employed by the State ofWisconsin as a public defender. At all relevant times, respondentJames Alexander was employed as the Executive Director of theWisconsin Judicial Commission, which is responsible formonitoring the conduct of judges in Wisconsin. Respondent MaryAhlstrom was employed as an investigator for the Wisconsin Officeof Lawyer Regulation, which is responsible for monitoring theconduct of lawyers licensed to practice in Wisconsin.

B. Relevant Events

In March 1999, petitioner was charged with multiple counts offailure to pay child support, a felony offense in Wisconsin. Atan initial hearing that month, respondent Cameron was appointedto represent petitioner in connection with the charges.Petitioner informed respondent Cameron that he suffered fromacute anxiety and demanded a jury trial be held promptly.Respondent Cameron told petitioner that a trial would not benecessary because the state wanted only to collect the money heowed.

At a pretrial conference held on April 28, 1999, respondentCameron requested that a preliminary hearing be held promptly.Respondent Lundell set the preliminary hearing for April 30, butrespondent Cameron cancelled the hearing because he disagreedwith the defense petitioner wished to pursue. Cameron toldpetitioner to ask the court to appointPage 4another attorney to represent him because he disagreed with thedefense petitioner wished to assert. In June 1999, anotherpreliminary hearing was held at which the mother of petitioner'schild testified. (The mother is also the child's custodialparent.) In September 1999, petitioner informed respondentsCameron and Lundell that he needed psychiatric help for anxietyattacks and a related emotional breakdown. In October 1999,respondent Lundell set petitioner's case for trial on December21-22, 1999.

The day before the trial was to begin, respondent Cameron fileda motion to withdraw as petitioner's attorney. On the daypetitioner's trial was to begin, the court held a hearing todiscuss the conflicts between petitioner and respondent Cameron.At the hearing, petitioner alleged that respondent Cameron hadcommitted misconduct and told respondent Lundell that he did nottrust respondent Cameron. However, respondent Lundell denied themotion to withdraw. In addition, he told the prosecutor thatpetitioner's case "may not be the appropriate case to go to themat with," and informed petitioner that a jury would "take aboutone minute and you would be found not guilty, if it would eventake one minute, okay?" Respondent Lundell closed the hearing bysetting the next hearing in the case for February 2000.

Desperate to end the delays in his case, petitioner complainedto the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and the Office of LawyerRegulation, where he made contact with respondents Alexander andAhlstrom. Respondent Alexander told him that respondentPage 5Lundell had made a "bad decision" by not holding petitioner'strial sooner but that his actions did not constitute judicialmisconduct. Respondent Ahlstrom investigated respondent Cameron'sconduct but closed her investigation when petitioner failed toretain an attorney in connection with the investigation.

In January 2000, respondent Cameron told petitioner that hecould get the charges against him dropped by buying a "deferredprosecution agreement" for $25.00. Petitioner accepted theagreement at a February hearing. Some time after the hearing,respondent Cameron informed petitioner that there were additionalcosts associated with the agreement that petitioner had not knownabout before he accepted the agreement. At the next hearing,petitioner withdrew his acceptance of the agreement and toldrespondent Lundell that he had not been aware of the additionalcharges when he accepted the agreement. Petitioner expressed hisdistrust of respondent Cameron again and requested thatrespondent Cameron be removed from his case. Respondent Lundelldenied petitioner's request as well as respondent Cameron'ssecond motion to withdraw.

In March 2000, respondent Cameron requested a psychiatricevaluation of petitioner. Respondent Lundell granted the request.The evaluation indicated that petitioner was competent but had"serious mental health issues." In April 2000, petitioner renewedhis request to have a new attorney appointed to represent him,explaining to respondent Lundell that respondent Cameron refusedto let his case go to trial despite petitioner's clearlyPage 6expressed need for a prompt trial. Petitioner stated further thatrespondent Cameron was exploiting petitioner's anxiety disorder.Respondent Lundell denied petitioner's request a third time. Alsoin April, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the chargesbecause of the state's lack of jurisdiction. (Petitioner does notindicate the outcome of this motion. Presumably, it was denied.)Respondent Lundell told the prosecutor assigned to petitioner'scase that he "honestly wouldn't look forward to a jury trial inthis matter." He postponed petitioner's case for another month,telling petitioner that his decision "sort of infringes on yourright to a speedy trial."

In May 2000, respondent Lundell suggested that defendantCameron file a motion to dismiss the charges on the basis ofpetitioner's mental state. Lundell set a hearing on the motionfor June and assured petitioner that he would receive a jurytrial. Still desperate to end the case, petitioner submittedcomplaints to respondent Alexander and then governor TommyThompson. Neither Alexander nor Thompson responded topetitioner's complaints.

By June, petitioner was so distraught that his business failedand he experienced mounting financial hardships. He was unable toafford psychiatric treatment. That month, respondents Lundell andCameron met outside petitioner's presence. At the meeting, it wasagreed that the charges against petitioner would be dismissedbecause of a lack of evidence. In addition to the mental anguishand financial hardship petitioner experienced, his physicalhealth declined while the charges were pending. Because he couldno longer afford medicinePage 7to treat his anxiety attacks, petitioner began using marijuanaand alcohol.

Some time after the charges against petitioner were dismissed,he attempted to "get some answers" from respondents Lundell andCameron. Petitioner expressed himself to respondents using "avariety of analogies and metaphors" that were misleading andfrightened respondents. They complained to the authorities, whoarrested petitioner immediately. He was placed in jail andremained there because he could not afford to pay his $100,000.00bail. Petitioner represented himself at his trial because hecould not afford a lawyer and the court denied his request forcounsel. A court-appointed psychiatrist informed the court thatpetitioner was mentally ill but his trial continued. After he wasconvicted of threatening respondents Lundell and Cameron, thecourt determined that petitioner was eligible to have a lawyerappointed to represent him. The court appointed counsel forpetitioner and he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison.

DISCUSSION

I understand petitioner to allege that respondents violated hisEighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishmentand his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial by delayingresolution of his case for more than a year. In addition, Iunderstand petitioner to be alleging that respondent Lundellviolated his Sixth Amendment rights to counsel by repeatedlyrefusing to allow respondent Cameron to withdraw fromrepresentingPage 8petitioner. Petitioner will be denied leave to proceed on eachthese claims.

A. Judicial Immunity

Before delving into the substance of petitioner's allegations,I note that respondent Lundell is alleged to be a state circuitcourt judge who postponed petitioner's trial and refused to allowrespondent Cameron to withdraw from representing petitioner. Fewdoctrines are more solidly established at common law than theabsolute immunity of judges from liability for their judicialacts, even when they act maliciously or corruptly. Mireles v.Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991). This immunity is not for the protectionor benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefitof the public, which has an interest in a judiciary free toexercise its function without fear of harassment by unsatisfiedlitigants. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 554 (1967). The scopeof judicial immunity is defined by the functions it protects, notby the person to whom it attaches. Forrester v. White,484 U.S. 219 (1988). However, it is unquestioned that immunity applies to"the paradigmatic judicial acts involved in resolving disputesbetween parties who have invoked the jurisdiction of a court."Id. Because petitioner's claims against respondent Lundell arebased on his dissatisfaction with this respondent's judicialdecisions, I conclude that there is no arguable basis in fact orlaw for his claims against respondent Lundell.Page 9

B. Eighth Amendment

Petitioner contends that the conduct of respondent Cameronduring the pendency of the child support charges inflicted crueland unusual punishment on him in violation of the EighthAmendment. He argues that respondent Cameron was aware of hismental disabilities and his need for a prompt resolution to hiscase but nonetheless allowed the case to remain pending for morethan a year. In addition, he faults respondents Alexander andAhlstrom for failing to intervene on his behalf before thecharges were dismissed. Petitioner will be denied leave toproceed on this claim because his allegations do not state aclaim under the Eighth Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusualpunishment applies only to an individual who has been convictedof a crime. Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904 , 910 (7th Cir. 2005)("[t]he Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusualpunishment gives rise to the constitutional rights of a convictedstate prisoner"); Bailey v. Andrews, 811 F.2d 366 , 373 (7thCir. 1987) ("the [E]ighth [A]mendment right to be free from crueland unusual punishment is applicable only to sentencedcriminals"). The amendment does not apply to an individual whohas not been convicted of a crime. To put it another way, anindividual who has not been convicted of a crime cannot be"punished" for the purpose of the Eighth Amendment. In this case,petitioner contends that the delays in resolving his caseattributable to respondent Cameron caused his business to failandPage 10caused him mental and physical anguish. The Eighth Amendment doesnot apply to events that occur before an individual is convictedof a crime. Because petitioner's allegations concern events thatoccurred in the pre-trial phase of his case, they areinsufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.

C. Sixth Amendment

I understand petitioner to allege that respondents Cameron andAlexander violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.Initially, I note that petitioner confuses his constitutionalright to a speedy trial with his right to a speedy trial underWisconsin law. He notes correctly that Wisconsin law requiresthat the trial of an individual charged with a felony offensecommence within 90 days of the date on which a party demands it.Wis. Stat. § 971.10 (2)(a). A fair reading of petitioner'sallegations suggests that he was not brought to trial within 90days of the date he requested a trial. However, it iswellestablished that a violation of state law, by itself, is nota sufficient basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . J.H. exrel. Higgin v. Johnson, 346 F.3d 788 , 793 (7th Cir. 2003);Tierney v. Vahle, 304 F.3d 734 , 741 (7th Cir. 2002). Section1983 provides a civil remedy only for violations of rightsconferred by federal law or the federal constitution. Thus, evena clear violation of petitioner's state law right to a speedytrial would not support a claim under § 1983. In addition, it isclear that petitioner's allegations do not give rise to a claimPage 11that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violatedbecause petitioner affirmatively states that the failure to paychild support charges against him were dismissed. Because notrial ever occurred, and none is necessary given that the chargeswere dropped, petitioner cannot prove a violation of his SixthAmendment right to a speedy trial.

Petitioner's frustration with the slow pace of the wheels ofjustice is evident. However, the Constitution does not provide aremedy for the anxiety, stress and financial loss that sometimesaccompany criminal charges.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that

1. Petitioner Robert Roth's request for leave to proceed informa pauperis on his claim that respondent Lundell violatedhis Sixth Amendment right to counsel is DENIED;

2. Petitioner's request for leave to proceed in formapauperis on his claim that respondents Lundell, Cameron,Alexander and Ahlstrom violated his Eighth Amendment protectionagainst cruel and unusual punishment DENIED;

3. Petitioner's request for leave to proceed in formapauperis on his claim that respondents Cameron and Alexanderviolated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is DENIED;

Threatening to take away Federal Funding wakes up State Officials

U.S. education officials have flunked Massachusetts for requiring divorced parents to wage an expensive battle for access to their child's school records, after a crusading Milford father successfully challenged a flawed 7-year-old state law.

``This is the big stick,'' Dr. Henry Fassler, a 62-year-old father, said of the recent U.S. Department of Education warning to Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll. ``The commonwealth and every school district in Massachusetts is in violation of federal law, and has been for years.'' Bay State parents who live apart from their children after divorce have been thwarted in their efforts to seek public school records, including report cards, under a state law that must be scrapped unless the state wants to risk losing millions in education aid.

``However laudable state law may be in its desire to protect children and custodial parents,'' states a May 6 letter to Driscoll from LeRoy S. Rooker, director of the U.S. Department of Education's Family Policy Compliance Office, non-custodial parents cannot be denied access to school records unless there is evidence those ``rights have been specifically revoked.''

Fassler, a dentist, said he moved to Milford just to be near his 17-year-old daughter, Lindsey, a high school junior. He never had problems accessing her records until he tried to get a copy of his daughter's schedule last year from a school official, who initially said he could not provide it under a state law the district was following after receiving training from the state. He did his homework and filed a detailed complaint in October.

Driscoll told the Herald that the DOE will work with lawmakers to change the law and will notify superintendents this week of the conflict. ``We're in agreement with Dr. Fassler that this needs to be fixed,'' said Driscoll, who added that he doubted that the law ``came up very often . . . on the ground.''

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Vets at military retirement home sue Rumsfeld

...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Residents of a historic retirement home for war veterans filed a class-action lawsuit Tuesday against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, asserting that the Pentagon chief has imposed excessive and illegal cutbacks in on-site medical and dental services.

The suit was filed in federal court on behalf of the nearly 1,000 residents at the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, one of two such institutions managed by the Defense Department.

The home's chief financial officer, Steve McManus, said in an interview that the residents who filed the complaint do not fully understand the reasons for some of the changes. He said they have not only saved money but also produced efficiencies and improvements.

Lyga told FRONTLINE that Gaines threatened him with a gun and that he responded in self-defense, adding, "In my training experience this guy had 'I'm a gang member' written all over him."

Investigators on the case discovered that Gaines had allegedly been involved in similar road rage incidents, threatening drivers and brandishing his gun. They also discovered troubling connections between Gaines and Death Row Records, a rap recording label owned by Marion "Suge" Knight that, investigators came to find, was hiring off-duty police officers as security guards.

Lyga, who had been reassigned to desk duty while the L.A.P.D. reviewed the circumstances of the shooting, including whether his actions had been racially motivated, was ultimately exonerated a year later. Three separate internal investigations determined that the shooting was "in policy."

After the shooting, the Gaines family, represented by attorney Johnnie Cochran, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles for $25 million. The city later settled the suit for $250,000.

Strange Justice

Image stolen from the Wizbang blog

PENNSYLVANIA JUSTICE

An Adams County man imprisoned for 16 years for a murder he did not commit filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against the county, the state police and investigators, accusing them of lying and doctoring evidence to obtain the conviction. Attorneys for Barry Laughman, 42, of Hanover, charge in the suit that Laughman's wrongful conviction "is part of a persistent and troubling pattern of manipulating and falsifying evidence and testimony that exists and is condoned within certain law enforcement units of the commonwealth and the county."

The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, names troopers John J. Holtz and Donald Blevins, state police chemist Janice Roadcap and four former state police commissioners as defendants, as well as Adams County and its district attorney's office. It charges that the commissioners and other high-ranking members of the state police knew the investigators would fabricate evidence and did nothing to stop it. "The aforementioned misconduct of defendants troopers Holtz and Blevins and Chemist Roadcap is consistent with a pattern of misconduct which has existed, been condoned and even encouraged within the PSP for at least the last 34 years," the suit says.

Laughman was convicted of raping and murdering Edna Laughman, 85, a distant relative, in 1987. His conviction was based largely on a confession obtained by Holtz, who claimed the mildly retarded man knew details of the crime known only to the killer. While Laughman's blood type is different from that of semen left on the victim, Roadcap offered explanations for the discrepancies. In later testimony, experts called her explanations "junk science." Both Holtz and Roadcap have been involved in other cases that were overturned.

A letter sent to Connecticut State Police Commissioner Leonard C. Boyle

I had complaints regarding the former Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada and had contacted the former Governor Rowland’s office talking with Carol Amino, February 21, 2003. She seemed to threaten me with further arrests and prison, insinuating that Arthur L. Spada would further retaliate against me for having complained about Connecticut State Police practices. Are you willing to investigate Arthur L. Spada for state and federal laws violated?

I proposed laws to State Senator Anthony Guglielmo and the former State Representative Mordasky after having bought rental property in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, starting around the Summer of 1998. I was told by Representative Mordasky’s aid in the Autumn of 2001 that I should sell my property and leave Connecticut before the Connecticut State Police retaliated for my having complained in newspapers regarding downtown law enforcement practices and for having proposed Civilian Oversight of Police. She told me that the Connecticut State Police liaison to legislators told me that I was really going to get it for my activities.

Is Free Speech, Redressing Grievances, and Proposing Laws to Elected Officials protected behavior in Connecticut?

I had lodged complaints against Connecticut State Police Internal Affairs and felt I was threatened by LT Wack and was taken aback when he told me he wasn’t willing to investigate ‘his friends’. What!!!???

If Connecticut can’t ensure quality and legal behavior of officers, shouldn’t oversight of police be taken away from police and legislated to an independent civilian review board?

I was told I ‘confessed’ in police custody 10-12-01 in the early AM hours to Sgt. Sticca. I contacted Major Wheeler regarding my supposed confession and then asked that the lock up tapes at Troop C, Tolland, CT, be reviewed and that Sgt. Sticca be charged. I heard nothing more about my supposed confession.

If Troopers, Langlais and Amaral, hadn’t committed perjury at my Rockville Connecticut trial for ‘overreacting’ to coming home in the dark to be jumped, beaten, and threatened with death if I didn’t give up my wallet, having used pepper spray to end the abuse I was taking, saying I had not asked to make a statement/complaint against my attacker, I would never have been falsely sentenced after the false arrest for being a crime victim.

I believe Arthur L. Spada himself ordered the harassment that led up to my false arrest and imprisonment.

I tested my theory that Spada had acted in illegal collusion with Judge Jonathan Kaplan, by sending Spada an email asking that the US Dept. of Justice webpage on Community Policing be taken off the Connecticut State Police website, citing that the policies weren’t being followed, indicating I was sending hardcopy to the US Dept. of Justice.

I felt if Judge Kaplan freaked out on my the following day it would mean that he had conspired with high ranking Connecticut State Police officers to punish me for having angered him by having my name come across his desk having complained to the governor’s office regarding Connecticut State Police officers’ inappropriate behavior and for having the audacity to propose laws that Spada didn’t like.

It is my opinion if that Connecticut State Police, as an organization, can’t ensure the respecting of the US. Constitution, Connecticut, and US laws, then the organization should be dismantled or be made to take the word, “Police,” and “Law Enforcement,” off any buildings, uniforms, paperwork, badges, etc. to be replaced with the words, “Armed Revenue Collector,” instead.

I feel if Connecticut State Police officers can’t or are not willing to protect and serve the taxpayers that pay their salaries, we the people should sue in federal court to abolish the Connecticut State Police.

Honorable Police and fair courts ARE needed to not have anarchy.

I would like to see if you are part of the solution or part of the problem that needs to be fixed.

P.S. Please put the words “Arthur L. Spada” in a yahoo search engine, clicking on the “Arthur L. Spada” post on FreeSpeech.com to view more information on my complaints against Spada. Please see that my case is ‘fixed’ by making sure my claims are properly and thoroughly investigated.

Good Reasons to question our legal system

...

How come court orders have to be observed by men, but not by women?

Restraining Order issued against Christopher Kennedy of Ellington, Connecticut

The above 'restraining order' isn't properly filled in, contains blanks, and wasn't originally intended to keep Christopher Kennedy from being able to see his kids. But, Connecticut judges can't concern themselves with fairness nor actually observing and following laws themselves.

Should a ‘blank’ restraining order be issued, or one that results from a computer order that a judge is aware of be issued, issued with much stricter conditions, and/or be a tool for a judge to arbitrarily take a man’s kids away because he dared complain about officials or the antics of an out of control legal system?

Should a judge be allowed to bring up your race and rule against you in the harshest way citing your race or national origin?

Steve, You don't have itcorrect. - Judge Kaplan used the RO to remove my twodaughters. He intentionally removed my daughters, with the mother'sattorney's help to punish me. The corruption is that The RO, listed nochildren and no abuse.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Woman arrested with 2 children in trunk

NEWHALL, California (AP) -- A woman was arrested after the California Highway Patrol officer who pulled her car over found nine people crammed inside, including two children in the trunk.

"I have never heard of this," said Officer Wendy Hahn.

"There was no room left in the car, so she puts two of the kids in the trunk. We're trying to get people to buckle up, and this is what we find."

Lavern Dunlap, 35, of Glendora, was pulled over about 8 p.m. Friday after another driver reported seeing a woman closing the trunk of her Toyota Corolla with two children inside as the vehicle sat parked on a shoulder.

Dunlap told the officer she was heading to her sister's house in Palmdale, about a 60-mile trip.

The officer discovered a 15-year-old boy and a 10-year-old girl in the trunk, four children in the back seat, an adult in the front passenger seat with a child on her lap and Dunlap behind the wheel. No one was wearing a seat belt, she said.

Dunlap was booked on suspicion of child cruelty and was released. She is scheduled to appear next month in court.